Clark v. Thomas

Filing 83

ORDER that 73 Plaintiff's Request for Document Discovery is GRANTED to the extent that if and when Defendants obtain photographs of the underlying incident, Defendant shall provide those photographs to Plaintiff. The motion is DENIED in all other requests. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 5/25/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7
8

MICHAEL E. CLARK,

9

Plaintiff,

10

vs.

11

JOHN THOMAS,

12

Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:09-cv-2272-GMN-GWF
ORDER
Motion to Compel (#73)

13
14

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Request for Document Discovery (#73),

15

filed on April 27, 2012; Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Request (#77), filed on May 10,

16

2012; and Plaintiff’s Reply (#82), filed on May 22, 2012. Plaintiff’s Request for Document

17

Discovery appears to be a request for production of documents, which should be served on

18

Defendant and not the Court. See LR 26-8. Further, discovery in this matter closed on February

19

17, 2012 (see #44), and dispositive motions have already been filed by both parties. (See #55, #69)

20

Nevertheless, despite the untimeliness of Plaintiff’s motion and its procedural deficiencies, the

21

Court will treat Plaintiff’s Request as a motion to compel discovery in an attempt to move this case

22

forward.

23

Plaintiff appears to be requesting (1) Plaintiff’s prison medical records; (2) pictures of

24

Plaintiff’s alleged injuries; (3) a copy of the Inspector General’s investigation report into Defendant

25

Thomas’ alleged actions; and (4) all documents that Defendant intends to use at trial. Defendant, in

26

its opposition, attempts to offer a compromise to Plaintiff’s requests. Defendant’s counsel

27

represents that he sent copies of Plaintiff’s medical records to Plaintiff on or around May 10, 2012.

28

Defendant further states that he is in the process of locating any pictures that were taken

1

of the incident, and upon obtaining them, will disclose them to Plaintiff. In regard to the Inspector

2

General’s report, Defendant states that Plaintiff was previously supplied a copy of that report on

3

two separate occasions. Additionally, on November 9, 2011, the Court ordered disclosure of the

4

Inspector General’s report. (See #50) The Court finds Defendant’s suggestions regarding the

5

requested discovery reasonable.

6

Further, the Court finds Plaintiff’s request for all the documents Defendant intends to use at

7

trial premature. Both parties have dispositive motions pending before the Court that could greatly

8

affect the scope of trial. Documents used at trial should be disclosed in the joint pretrial order,

9

which is due 30 days after ruling on the dispositive motions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3).

10
11

Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Request for Document Discovery (#73) is

12

granted to the extent that if and when Defendants obtain photographs of the underlying incident,

13

Defendant shall provide those photographs to Plaintiff, and is denied in all other requests.

14

DATED this 25th day of May 2012.

15
16
17

______________________________________
GEORGE FOLEY, JR.
United States Magistrate Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2